I’m plenty open to questioning every part of copyright (has the idea ever actually been proven to be worth the enormous costs? It’s like an infinity-percent tariff on anything information related.) but the same copyright should apply to everbody. It sounds like this proposal gives a specific pass to corporations developing AI - anything these corporations can access should be accessible to the general public as well. If you can use a song to train an AI for free, a human artist should also be allowed to use it directly and turn it into a new work.
Most of us make fun of the stupid everyday masses for supporting laws that only benefit people who are vastly richer than they’ll ever be. But I’m almost guaranteed to get douchevoted for pointing out that the vast majority of musicians never get famous, never get recording contracts, but make their living day to day playing little gigs wherever they can find them. They don’t materially suffer if AI includes patterns from their creations in its output, because they don’t get any revenue streams from it to begin with. Realistically they’re the people most of us should identify with, but instead we rally behind the likes of Paul McCartney and Elton John as if they represent us. McCartney’s a billionaire and Elton’s more than halfway there - they both own recording companies ffs. If you’re going to do simple meme-brained thinking and put black or white hats on people, at least get the hats right.
Taylor swift is another one… She really fought them record labels lol
Good for her but she has no class solidarity with peasants anymore than the rest of owner class.
Yeah, but if the politicians don’t listen to hurt celebrities who then will they listen to? -The poors?
/s
AI really shows the absurdity of intellectual property as a concept, the very way we learn, every idea we can have, every mental image we can create is the sum of copying and adapting the things we perceive and ideas that have predated our own, you can see this from the earliest forms of art where simple shapes and patterns were transmuted and adapted into increasingly complex ones or through the influence of old innovations into new ones, for example the influence of automatons on weaving looms with punched pegs and their influence on babbage machines and eventually computers. IP is ontological incoherent for this reason you cannot “own” an idea so much as you can own the water of one part of a stream
I don’t disagree with you, but AI companies shouldn’t get an exclusive free pass.
Oh yes, I am not saying that at all. I am still very unsure on my views of AI from a precautionary standpoint and I think that its commercial use will lead to more harm than good but if these things are the closest analogs we have to looking at how humans learn and create it shows IP is ridiculous- I mean we do not even need them to see this, if an idea was purely and solely one person’s property the idea of someone from the sentinel island (assuming they have not left and learnt oncology) inventing the cure for brain cancer is as likely as a team of oncologists at Oxford doing it.
Absurd obscenities you spew my friend, the fact that an artist take influences from any kind of art form doesn’t mean the end result is not original and it is not intellectual property as that
Intellectual property is intellectual theft
Good, fuck copyright these cunts have enough money already.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
In theory, could you then just register as an AI company and pirate anything?
Well no, just the largest ones who can pay some fine or have nearly endless legal funds to discourage challenges to their practice, this bring a form of a pretend business moat. The average company won’t be able to and will get shredded.
What fine? I thought this new law allows it. Or is it one of those instances where training your AI on copyrighted material and distributing it is fine but actually sourcing it isn‘t so you can‘t legally create a model but also nobody can do anything if you have and use it? That sounds legally very messy.
You’re assuming most of the commentors here are familiar with the legal technicalities instead of just spouting whatever uninformed opinion they have.
You can already just pirate anything. In fact, downloading copyrighted content is not illegal in most countries just distributing is.
That would be hilarious if someone made a website showing how they are using pirated Nintendo games (complete with screenshots of the games, etc) to show how they are “training” their AI just to watch Nintendo freak out.
No, because training an AI is not “pirating.”
If they are training the AI with copyrighted data that they aren’t paying for, then yes, they are doing the same thing as traditional media piracy. While I think piracy laws have been grossly blown out of proportion by entities such as the RIAA and MPAA, these AI companies shouldn’t get a pass for doing what Joe Schmoe would get fined thousands of dollars for on a smaller scale.
In fact when you think about the way organizations like RIAA and MPAA like to calculate damages based on lost potential sales they pull out of thin air training an AI that might make up entire songs that compete with their existing set of songs should be even worse. (not that I want to encourage more of that kind of bullshit potential sales argument)
The act of copying the data without paying for it (assuming it’s something you need to pay for to get a copy of) is piracy, yes. But the training of an AI is not piracy because no copying takes place.
A lot of people have a very vague, nebulous concept of what copyright is all about. It isn’t a generalized “you should be able to get money whenever anyone does anything with something you thought of” law. It’s all about making and distributing copies of the data.
Where does the training data come from seems like the main issue, rather than the training itself. Copying has to take place somewhere for that data to exist. I’m no fan of the current IP regime but it seems like an obvious problem if you get caught making money with terabytes of content you don’t have a license for.
the slippery slope here is that you as an artist hear music on the radio, in movies and TV, commercials. All this hearing music is training your brain. If an AI company just plugged in an FM radio and learned from that music I’m sure that a lawsuit could start to make it that no one could listen to anyone’s music without being tainted.
That feels categorically different unless AI has legal standing as a person. We’re talking about training LLMs, there’s not anything more than people using computers going on here.
So then anyone who uses a computer to make music would be in violation?
Or is it some amount of computer generated content? How many notes? If its not a sample of a song, how does one know how much of those notes are attributed to which artist being stolen from?
What if I have someone else listen to a song and they generate a few bars of a song for me? Is it different that a computer listened and then generated output?
To me it sounds like artists were open to some types of violations but not others. If an AI model listened to the radio most of these issues go away unless we are saying that humans who listen to music and write similar songs are OK but people who write music using computers who calculate the statistically most common song are breaking the law.
A lot of the griping about AI training involves data that’s been freely published. Stable Diffusion, for example, trained on public images available on the internet for anyone to view, but led to all manner of ill-informed public outrage. LLMs train on public forums and news sites. But people have this notion that copyright gives them some kind of absolute control over the stuff they “own” and they suddenly see a way to demand a pound of flesh for what they previously posted in public. It’s just not so.
I have the right to analyze what I see. I strongly oppose any move to restrict that right.
Publically available =/= freely published
Many images are made and published with anti AI licenses or are otherwise licensed in a way that requires attribution for derivative works.
The problem with those things is that the viewer doesn’t need that license in order to analyze them. They can just refuse the license. Licenses don’t automatically apply, you have to accept them. And since they’re contracts they need to offer consideration, not just place restrictions.
An AI model is not a derivative work, it doesn’t include any identifiable pieces of the training data.
It’s also pretty clear they used a lot of books and other material they didn’t pay for, and obtained via illegal downloads. The practice of which I’m fine with, I just want it legalised for everyone.
I’m wondering when i go to the library and read a book, does this mean i can never become an author as I’m tainted? Or am I only tainted if I stole the book?
To me this is only a theft case.
And what of the massive amount of content paywalled that ai still used to train?
If it’s paywalled how did they access it?
This isn’t quite correct either.
The reality is that there’s a bunch of court cases and laws still up in the air about what AI training counts as, and until those are resolved the most we can make is conjecture and vague moral posturing.
Closest we have is likely the court decisions on music sampling and so far those haven’t been consistent, and have mostly hinged on “intent” and “affect on original copy sales”. So based on that logic whether or not AI training counts as copyright infringement is likely going to come down to whether or not shit like “ghibli filters” actually provably (at least as far as a judge is concerned) fuck with Ghibli’s sales.
court decisions on music sampling and so far those haven’t been consistent,
Grand Upright Music, Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records Inc. (1991) - Rapper Biz Markie sampled Gilbert O’Sullivan’s “Alone Again (Naturally)” without permission
Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films (2005) - any unauthorized sampling, no matter how minimal, is infringement.
VMG Salsoul v. Ciccone (2016) - to determine whether use was de minimis it must be considered whether an average audience would recognize appropriation from the original work as present in the accused work.
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994) - This case established that the fact that money is made by a work does not make it impossible for fair use to apply; it is merely one of the components of a fair use analysis
That case is about fair use for parody.
Case law suggests using AI for parody is legal.
the training of an AI is not piracy because no copying takes place.
One of the first steps of training is to copy the data into the training data set.
So streaming is fine but copying not
Streaming involves distributing copies so I don’t see why it would be. The law has been well tested in this area.
Well how does the AI company consume the content?
Which company us “the AI company?”
It’s exploiting copyrighted content without a licence, so, in short, it’s pirating.
“Exploiting copyrighted content” is an incredibly vague concept that is not illegal. Copyright is about distributing copies of copyrighted content.
If I am given a copyrighted book, there are plenty of ways that I can exploit that book that are not against copyright. I could make paper airplanes out of its pages. I could burn it for heat. I could even read it and learn from its contents. The one thing I can’t do is distribute copies of it.
It’s about making copies, not just distributing them, otherwise I wouldn’t be able to be bound by a software eula because I wouldn’t need a license to copy the content to my computer ram to run it.
The enforceability of EULAs varies with jurisdiction and with the actual contents of the EULA. It’s by no means a universally accepted thing.
It’s funny how suddenly large chunks of the Internet are cheering on EULAs and copyright enforcement by giant megacorporations because they’ve become convinced that AI is Satan.
I’m absolutely against the idea of EULAs but the fact remains they are only enforceable because it’s the copying that is the reserved right, not the distribution. If it was distribution then second hand sales would be prohibitable (though thanks to going digital only that loop hole is getting pulled shut slowly but surely).
Again, they are not universally enforceable. There are plenty of jurisdictions where they are not.
It’s not only about copying or distribution, but also use and reproduction. I can buy a legit DVD and play it in my own home and all is fine. Then I play it on my bar’s tv, in front of 100 people, and now it’s illegal. I can listen to a song however many times I want, but I can’t use it for anything other than private listening. In theory you should pay even if you want to make a video montage to show at your wedding.
Right now most licenses for copyrighted material specify that you use said material only for personal consumption. To use it for profit you need a special license
Copyrighted material can be used or reproduced only with a license that allows for it. If the license forbids you from using the copyrighted material for business purposes, and you do it anyway, then it’s pirating.
Well I agree in principle (I disagree that AI training is necessarily “stealing”), but downloading copyrighted material for which you do not own a license is textbook piracy, regardless of intent
I’m naming my torrent client “AI” and now I have the right to download a car.
But downloading and illegally using that font is okay?
and the music
Yes.
Because you have the money and plausible deniability to get away with it if it weren’t for those meddling kids and their dog.
hello yes I’m an ai company. let me torrent all the things pls thank you
That’s exactly what Meta did, they torrented the full libgen database of books.
If they can do it, anybody should be able to do it.
I like how their whole excuse to that was “WE DIDN’T SEED ANY OF IT BACK THOUGH” which arguably makes it even worse lol.
It doesn’t. You can download anything you want, distribution is what is illegal and criminal.
Downloading is still infringement. Distribution is worse, but I don’t think it’s a criminal matter, still just civil.
Maybe in some weird countries.
Torrent means you download and also upload to others when you have some parts.
Kind of.
You can set your upload limit to 0 and not seed anything while still downloading.
Downloading is still 100% illegal in the US, though. However it’s up to the copyright holders to pursue criminal penalties, which I’m surprised isn’t happening with facebook.
Everyone who has evidence that facebook illegally downloaded their copyrighted material has a case to bring before a court.
No, not really. First of all, you can disable uploads. Second, you can use a seed box hosted in a country which doesn’t prosecute uploaders. So, you can be clean for all legal intents and purposes.
Zuck would be a hit and runner…
Technically it was never illegal in the US to download copywritten content. It was illegal to distribute them. That was literally Meta’s defence in court: they didn’t seed any downloads.
they didn’t seed any downloads
So Meta, 100% leeching.
Yeah no, only a select few special Ai companies, of course
My mind is AI and I need this content to train it.
I’m not sure if my brain counts as artificial, but with all the microplastics, it sure ain’t organic.
It’s like the goal is to bleed culture from humanity. Corporate is so keep on the $$$ they’re willing to sacrifice culture to it.
I’ll bet corporate gets to keep their copyrights.
Absolute fastest way to kill this shit? Feed the entire Disney catalog in and start producing knockoff Disney movies. Disney would kill this so fast.
With a mercenary death squad, probably.
That’s exactly what i was just thinking.
Where’s Disney in all of this?Probably getting in on it tbh
Good point. I wouldn’t be surprised if they have deals with all the ai companies.
https://futurism.com/the-byte/disney-mocked-fake-cgi-actors-crowd-scene
Using AI to cook up some fake actors as of a couple years ago.
Or Nintendo.
The record companies already have all the data and all the rights. Petitions like these are meant to rig the game in their favor, so we get the official Warner Music AI at a high price point with licensing fees, and anything open source is deemed illegal and cant be used in products.
If you’re on the side that stands with Disney, you are probably on the wrong one.
I mean honestly this AI era is the time for these absurd anti-piracy penalties to be enforced. Meta downloads libgen? $250,000 per book plus jail time to the person who’s responsible.
Oh but laws aren’t for the rich and powerful you see!
Always have been. Jpeg
If AI companies can pirate, so can individuals.
You know I am somewhat of a large language model myself.
At this rate we will get access to more rights if we can figure out a way to legally classify ourselves as AI.
Is the ai doing anything that isn’t already allowed for humans. The thing is, generative ai doesn’t copy someone’s art. It’s more akin to learning from someone’s art and creating you own art with that influence. Given that we want to continue allowing hunans access to art for learning, what’s the logical difference to an ai doing the same?
Did this already play out at Reddit? Ai was one of the reasons I left but I believe it’s a different scenario. I freely contributed my content to Reddit for the purposes of building an interactive community, but they changed the terms without my consent. I did NOT contribute my content so they could make money selling it for ai training
The only logical distinction I see with s ai aren’t human: an exception for humans does not apply to non-humans even if the activity is similar
Is the ai doing anything that isn’t already allowed for humans. The thing is, generative ai doesn’t copy someone’s art. It’s more akin to learning from someone’s art and creating you own art with that influence. Given that we want to continue allowing hunans access to art for learning, what’s the logical difference to an ai doing the same?
AI stans always say stuff like this, but it doesn’t make sense to me at all.
AI does not learn the same way that a human does: it has no senses of its own with which to observe the world or art, it has no lived experiences, it has no agency, preferences or subjectivity, and it has no real intelligence with which to interpret or understand the work that it is copying from. AI is simply a matrix of weights that has arbitrary data superimposed on it by people and companies.
Are you an artist or a creative person?
If you are then you must know that the things you create are certainly indirectly influenced by SOME of the things that you have experienced (be it walking around on a sunny day, your favorite scene from your favorite movie, the lyrics of a song, etc.), AS WELL AS your own unique and creative persona, your own ideas, your own philosophy, and your own personal development.
Look at how an artist creates a painting and compare it to how generative AI creates a painting. Similarly, look at how artists train and learn their craft and compare it to how generative AI models are trained. It’s an apples-to-oranges comparison. Outside of the marketing labels of “artificial intelligence” and “machine learning”, it’s nothing like real intelligence or learning at all.
(And that’s still ignoring the obvious corporate element and the four pillars of fair use consideration (US law, not UK, mind you). For example, the potential market effects of generating an automated system which uses people’s artwork to directly compete against them.)
Outside of the marketing labels of “artificial intelligence” and “machine learning”, it’s nothing like real intelligence or learning at all.
Generative AI uses artificial neural networks, which are based on how we understand brains to connect information (Biological neural networks). You’re right that they have no self generated input like humans do, but their sense of making connections between information is very similar to that of humans. It doesn’t really matter that they don’t have their own experiences, because they are not trying to be humans, they are trying to be as flexible of a ‘mind’ as possible.
Are you an artist or a creative person?
I see anti-AI people say this stuff all the time too. Because it’s a convenient excuse to disregard an opposing opinion as ‘doesn’t know art’, failing to realize or respect that most people have some kind of creative spark and outlet. And I know it wasn’t aimed at me, but before you think I’m dodging the question, I’m a creative working professionally with artists and designers.
Professional creative people and artists use AI too. A lot. Probably more than laypeople, because to use it well and combine it with other interesting ideas, requires a creative and inventive mind. There’s a reason AI is making it’s way all over media, into movies, into games, into books. And I don’t mean as AI slop, but well-implemented, guided AI usage.
I could ask you as well if you’ve ever studied programming, or studied psychology, as those things would all make you more able to understand the similarities between artificial neural networks and biological neural networks. But I don’t need a box to disregard you, the substance of your argument fails to convince me.
At the end of the day, it does matter that humans have their own experiences to mix in. But AI can also store much, much more influences than a human brain can. That effectively means for everything it makes, there is less of a specific source in there from specific artists.
For example, the potential market effects of generating an automated system which uses people’s artwork to directly compete against them.
Fair use considerations do not apply to works that are so substantially different from any influence, only when copyrighted material is directly re-used. If you read Harry Potter and write your own novel about wizards, you do not have to credit nor pay royalties to JK Rowling, so long as it isn’t substantially similar. Without any additional laws prohibiting such, AI is no different. To sue someone over fair use, you typically do have to prove that it infringes on your work, and so far there have not been any successful cases with that argument.
Most negative externalities from AI come from capitalism: Greedy bosses thinking they can replace true human talent with a machine, plagiarists that use it as a convenient tool to harass specific artists, scammers that use it to scam people. But around that exists an entire ecosystem of people just using it for what it should be used for: More and more creativity.
Just say you’re a disc Majors shill lmao. This is Metallica vs Napster all over again
You picked the wrong thread for a nuanced question on a controversial topic.
But it seems the UK indeed has laws for this already if the article is to believed, as they don’t currently allow AI companies to train on copyrighted material (As per the article). As far as I know, in some other jurisdictions, a normal person would absolutely be allowed to pull a bunch of publicly available information, learn from it, and decide to make something new based on objective information that can be found within. And generally, that’s the rationale AI companies used as well, seeing as there have been landmark cases ruled in the past to not be copyright infringement with wide acceptance for computers analyzing copyrighted information, such as against Google, for indexing copyrighted material in their search results. But perhaps an adjacent ruling was never accepted in the UK (which does seem strange, as Google does operate there). But laws are messy, and perhaps there is an exception somewhere, and I’m certainly not an expert on UK law.
But people sadly don’t really come into this thread to discuss the actual details, they just see a headline that invokes a feeling of “AI Bad”, and so you coming in here with a reasonable question makes you a target. I wholly expect to be downvoted as well.
Oh are we giving AI the same rights as humans now? On what grounds?
I never claimed that in this case. As I said in my response: There have been won lawsuits that machines are allowed to index and analyze copyrighted material without infringing on such rights, so long as they only extract objective information, such as what AI typically extracts. I’m not a lawyer, and your jurisdiction may differ, but this page has a good overview: https://blog.apify.com/is-web-scraping-legal/
EDIT: For the US description on that page, it mentions the US case that I referred to: Author’s Guild v Google
You might not remember but decades ago Microsoft was almost split in two. But then it came to pass that George Bush “won” the elections. And the case was dismissed.
In the US justice system, money talks.
Oh I agree money talks in the US justice system, but as the page shows, these laws also exist elsewhere, such as in the EU. And even if I or you don’t agree with them, they are still the case law that determines the legality of these things. For me that aligns with my ethical stance as well, but probably not yours.
I know they exist outside the US. I’m European. But there are too many terms of use that say that in case of problems they go to courts in the US that they will do everything on their hand to do the sameifn this case.
Can the rest of us please use copyrighted material without permission?
You already likely do. Every book you read and learned from is copyrighted material. Every video you watch on YouTube and learned from is copyrighted material.
The “without permission” is not correct. You’ve got permission to watch/listen/learn from it by them releasing it and you paying any applicable subscription etc costs. AI does the same.
By “use” I actually meant “reproduce portions of” and “make derivative works of”
AI doesn’t do that though.
For sure, AI can reproduce wholesale verbatim copies of text from miscellaneous sources. It can also create images that are so close to random deviantartists’ images that it’s undeniably plagiaristic. I expect this bug will be worked out eventually, but it is currently quite capable of doing this. In other words, you could say the weights contain a lossy encoding of many artists’ works, and those works can (lossily) be eked out of the model with some coercion.
Which AI models? Can you share some examples please?
Here’s a poignant example IMO:
As long as you use AI to generate it
The AI just gives you a 1:1 copy of it’s training data, which is the material. Viola.
Yes.
God I hope so.
Normal people pirate: one hundred bazillion dollars fine for download The Hangover.
One hundred bazillion dollars company pirate: special law to say it okay because poor company no can exist without pirate 😞
So did this UK “centre-left” party turn out to be a Trojan horse or what? They’ve dismantled trans rights. They plan on using AI thought police to ‘predict’ future crimes and criminals. And now they want multibillion corporations to have free access to anyone’s work without compensation.
If I hadn’t looked this political party up on Wikipedia, by this point I would be assuming that they’re a bunch of conservative wankers on Elon Musk’s payroll.
I looked up the history of UK Parliament a while ago. Since conception there have only ever been two parties in charge: Conservative (used to be called Liberal) and Labour. Before merges and changes the main groups were called Whigs and Tories, both of which primarily became Conservative. Modern Liberals brought back the original Liberal Party, while Liberal Democrats were formed by part of Labour and part of the modern Liberals. They are pretty much identical in terms of actual change.
The only show of promise is that the Green Party have secured a massive increase in power, and there might actually be a chance of a difference in the next decade.
You’ve got the details a little wrong. The original two were the Whigs and the Tories, as you say. The Whigs became the Liberals who became the modern day Liberal Democrats, who still exist but haven’t been in power outside of being a junior member of a coalition for a century. Tories became the Conservatives, who are still one of the major two and are regularly still called the Tories. There was a faction that broke away from the Whigs called the Liberal Unionists, who merged into the Conservatives, but they’re separate from the Liberals. Labour is not a successor to either of them, though they did make some strategic agreements with the Liberals early on. In the early 1900s, Labour replaced the Liberals as one of the two major parties.
It is still consistently a two-party system. One of the historic parties got replaced and there is a stronger presence for minor parties than there is in the states (see especially the SNP in the past decade and the Tory-LibDem coalition in 2010), but still a two-party system
Thank you, I tried to condense it and may have condensed a little too hard aha
Shares of the vote in general elections since 1832 received by Conservatives[note 1] (blue), Liberals/Liberal Democrats[note 2] (orange), Labour (red) and others (grey)[1][2][3]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_general_elections
The Conservatives forming from a split in the Liberal party doesn’t mean they’re the same thing.
Labour and Liberal Democrats are two very different parties. Or at least they used to be, until New Labour became a thing…
Our politics are bad, FPTP is bad, but we’re not a 2 party system entirely. The Lib Dems, Greens, SNP, and Reform all manage to have a say in politics and how things are done. They all influence Labour and the Conservatives.
Our politics are bad, FPTP is bad, but we’re not a 2 party system entirely. The Lib Dems, Greens, SNP, and Reform all manage to have a say in politics and how things are done. They all influence Labour and the Conservatives.
Yes this is definitely true. Although these days unfortunately it seems to be both the Conservatives, and Labour who are influenced by Reform. Even Labour have started parroting some of the same lines about immigration etc. I’m always disappointed about how little talk there is of stuff like cost of living, rent etc since these are often at the forefront of my mind whenever I vote.
Is anyone calling UK Labour centre-left? I would have thought theyd be sitting just inside the lower right quadrant of the political compass, they might have been centre left when Corbyn was the leader but that was a while ago and Starmer isn’t that kinda guy.
Wait, so in all these years that Europeans have been making fun of dumb Americans for having a two party system, and for having no real left wing options, the UK has been basically the same?
Wait, so in all these years that Europeans have been making fun of dumb Americans for having a two party system, and for having no real left wing options, the UK has been basically the same?
Yes, that’s why Europeans make fun of both the UK and its former colony.
Kind of, its a little more complicated than that, I think its probably more accurate to say they have their own issues. The UK system is pretty different from the shitshow in the US.
They also use FPTP but have no electoral college and multiple parties including 4 major parties. So while there are multiple parties, in any given electorate you really need to vote for the party you hate the least that has a chance of winning. The two parties in an electorate that have a chance of winning varies across electorates and regions. They also have the House of Lords instead of a senate with members of House mostly being appointed (for life) rather than elected.
So … its own nonsense. Still seems less shithouse than the US system.
For life you say? Appointed? Sounds like someone already won in life and could retire at birth (owners class) then got punished by having to show up every once in a while to “make laws”.
I think they like the free money, the old money boys club and the chances to tell the poora whats best for them …
Lords in the UK get a tax free allowance of £323 for every day they actually turn up to work. But nothing actually forces them to show up.
Always has been.
Australia too.
Australias Labor party is sits slightly progressive and slightly left of centre, the greens sits hard left/progressive, given we have more than 8 parties, 4 of which could be considered major parties with 2 of those in the left and none of the issues associated with FPTP and that electoral college nonsense I think Australia is doing alright in the scheme of things, especially compared with the US and UK.
We’ve been making fun of the UK too, you dummie
Yes. So is France.
But at least you can vote for a proper left wing party. The social democrats will whine at you but they can’t say you’re secretly voting for the right since they’re the one refusing a broad left coalition
Can we just shut the fuck up about this fantasy “centre-left” already? There has not been a centre in a very long time, let alone a left. Regardless far-left or far-right, only options are authoritarian and not libertarian. Go compare Switzerland to enlighten yourself.
On the other hand copyright laws have been extended to insane time lengths. Sorry but your grandkids shouldn’t profit off of you.
It’s never the grandkids. The Beatles sold the rights to their songs.
